Re: Yucca; shipping to yucca

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

Now, Mr. Cohen, we may insult you, but we don't blow you off.  We answer your questions in detail.  Yes we had this discussion before, but if you are rational, you don't just dismiss the responses given by a casualm "I don't accept it."  That is an irrational response 


I will ask again: what specifically are your concerns?  Specifically:


1.  Why do you call SNF transportation "Mobile Chernobyl"?  What is it about that transportation that makes it comparable to the Chernobyl accident, in your eyes?  Do you refer to an automobile engine as "mobile napalm"?  Where is the fallacy in my previous response that an uncontrolled criticality couldn't occur in a SNF transportation cask in an accident?


2.  You say 

"We are concerned about the inevitable

accidents, truck crashes, train wrecks, that will occur when there are

over 50,000 shipments being planned. You are not concerned abut this,

stating that the shipping casks are strong enough. "


You are quite wrong: it is precisely because we are concerned that the casks are designed as they are and that the risks and consequences of accidents are so consistently overestimated in every analysis.  But to my question: Don't you think the casks are "strong enough"?  What kind of accident do you think they are not strong enough to withstand?  Is there any accident that you think they ARE strong enough to withstand?  Do you think 10 CFR Part 71 Subpart E is just whistling in the wind?  Not enforced?  Disregarded?  Inadequate?  If you think it is inadequate, in what way do you think so?


Maybe you could put these questions to David Lochbaum, and I could get his answers.


 


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com